ARE YOU A FLAKE?
This past Sunday Chris Wallace hosted Michele Bachman on his morning show [Fox] he had just come off a previous Sunday show controversy- he had on Jon Stewart and it got a little heated. Overall I think Stewart ‘blew it’ but I think Wallace blew it with Michele.
The present controversy was him asking Bachman ‘are you a flake’. Bachman responded well- but began with ‘first of all, that question is insulting’. She was right. She went on to explain her credentials- and what Wallace thought might be a cringing, defensive woman- turned out to be a capable, smart woman- who treated Wallace like he was a defense witness.
Then a strange thing happened- MSNBC ran with the story- they covered it with the righteous indignation of a prophet [false?] Oh they tore into Fox ‘how could they dare be so demeaning to such a wonderful woman- smart- cunning- savvy- they should be ashamed of themselves!’
Sounds good, the only problem was they are the network that spent the last year publicly demeaning the woman- day after day- relentlessly. They had a photo of the woman- you know some smart camera angle- it made her look like a wild eyed demon- they showed that photo like the N.Y. press covered Weiner.
They then did the most on air offensive thing I have ever seen. During the Repubs election [congress] they interviewed Bachman. She showed up- just like a liberal might show up with a Fox reporter. Basically you treat the guest well- even if you go hard on the person [a skill Lawrence O’Donnell has yet to learn]. As Chris Matthews is talking with the woman- he asks her a question- she does what lots of folk do- she basically used her time to get her talking points across- and avoided the question.
Now- what the interviewer normally does is asks it one or 2 more times- and if no response- just move on. But Matthews says [paraphrasing here] ‘are you hypnotized- has someone hypnotized you- maybe an alien ship?’ he went on to demean her in a way I have never seen a reporter do. And in the background you heard Eugene Robinson [a regular on the show] openly laughing in mockery.
So after portraying the woman as an idiot- publicly- for at least a year- they then decide to critique Fox for Wallace’s disrespect to the woman- these guys are shameless.
But- that gets me into a guest host they had on the other night. Ron Reagan Jr. He did alright- I’m not a big fan of his dad- though he has become an Icon in some circles. Somehow Reagan got into the Evolution/Creationism debate. Now- most times when these guys try this- they fall flat. I have critiqued MSNBC guys before- Catholics- who have slandered their own church. They say ‘the Catholic church teaches this’ and they mislead their own Catholic listeners- and I try and write on it and give the actual Catholic view [being I study all Christian theologies]. So little Reagan goes into this thing on Evolution- he says ‘look- I don’t care what people want to believe- they can believe the moon [or earth?] is made out of cheese with a giant turtle on top- but don’t bring that into the science room’.
Most of these guys have no idea about the debate. The other day my 2nd oldest came over to show me her degree- she finally finished and got her degree in Biology. Over the years I would have good discussions with her- on a fairly good level- about biology. I have read and studied Biology, Physics, History- lots of subjects over the years- and it helps when you’re conversing with others in their respective fields.
And the talks I have had were in no way controversial- my daughter actually learned stuff- things that she was familiar with- yet she realized the points I was making- were indeed factual. Yet these points- as obvious as they were- were indeed left out of her courses- she saw that. [Noah Feldman calls this the ‘secularization of the public schools’- the fear that the public school system has when dealing with religion- or even covering it fairly when teaching history- or the impact of religious thought on science. The fact is that both Evolutionary Theory- and ‘Creationism’ [more preferably Intelligent Design] have religious aspects to them- they both espouse ultimate causes that cannot be seen with the naked eye].
Now- I wasn’t talking ‘cheese with a turtle on it’ you must be quite the ignoramus to think that the debate between intelligent design and Darwin’s theory is still at that stage. I mean there are many scientists- unbelievers- who are ready to reject the full idea of Darwin. Why?
There are lots of things that we could go into on these subjects- but a few major points are these;
When Darwin [Charles Darwin- popularized modern Evolutionary theory- lived in the 1800's] espoused his theory- he thought that it was possible that all life came from one ‘common ancestor’. He came up with the idea [it was around before actually] because of his observation of the Finch’s [birds] he observed on his famous trip to the Galapagos Islands.
Darwin realized- and stated in his books [On the Origin of the Species, the Descent of Man] that eventually science would advance to the point where he would either be proven right or wrong- I think that day has arrived- and so do many scientists.
I read an article/quote by one of the Leaky daughters [from the famous Leaky family who have done much in the area of Evolution] and she basically said ‘we have to admit that the obvious lack of evidence is leading us to re think the theory’.
Basically science has shown us- that the foundational plank to Darwin’s theory- has absolutely no scientific proof. For Darwin’s theory to be true- you need the cells of one living thing to eventually ‘evolve’ into the cells of another living thing. Not only has this phenomenon never been observed to happen in the natural environment- they can’t even make it happen in the controlled environment- in the lab.
Millions of man hours and dollars have been spent in trying to cause the cell of one thing to ‘evolve’ into the cell of another thing [basically they do these experiments with fruit flies because they breed rapidly] and one of the most provable, observable facts of modern biology is the fact that the cells of living things don’t do this- ever- never- not once!
So what Miss Leakey was saying was- if we have spent so much time and effort in trying to show that this does happen- and after all of the years of observable study [true science] this has never been observed to have happened, we need to admit that science is showing us that this does not occur.
Basically the criticism of Darwin is the fact that the most basic plank of the theory- has indeed been shown to be ‘un observable’ science is unable to make- or observe this happening.
Okay- there’s a lot more that can be said on this- and there have been many good things that have come down to us from Darwin’s ideas- indeed Natural Selection does take place- but it’s limited to the particular species- it doesn’t ‘cross over’ from one species to another. So we do credit the man for some good things.
But then- for anyone to think this debate is still on the level of ‘a cheese planet with a turtle on top’ geez- even Bachman knows better than that!